Siegfried v. Ludwig
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: Of July Term 1882, No. 172. Assumpsit, by Wilson P. Ludwig, against Henry Siegfried, Charles W. Ludwig, Samuel Both and George Hagenbuch, late partners in the linn of Siegfried, Ludwig & Co., upon a promissory note, dated December 20th 1877, signed “ Siegfried, Ludwig & Co.,” in favor of the plaintiff, for $1,050. On trial, before Albright, P. J., the following facts appeared : On January 8th 1877, the several members of…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: Of July Term 1882, No. 172. Assumpsit, by Wilson P. Ludwig, against Henry Siegfried, Charles W. Ludwig, Samuel Both and George Hagenbuch, late partners in the linn of Siegfried, Ludwig & Co., upon a promissory note, dated December 20th 1877, signed “ Siegfried, Ludwig & Co.,” in favor of the plaintiff, for $1,050. On trial, before Albright, P. J., the following facts appeared : On January 8th 1877, the several members of the firm of Siegfried, Ludwig & Co. (the defendants) signed articles of dissolution, wherein it was provided, inter alia,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered March 19th 1883.
2Per curiam
It is well settled that after the dissolution of a partnership, a liquidating partner may give the note of the firm for money which he borrows to pay a debt of the firm, and so applies the money: Davis’ Estate, 5 Whar. 530; McCowin v. Cubbison, 22 P. F. Smith 358: Lloyd v. Thomas, 29 Id. 68.
There was sufficient evidence to justify the finding that Charles W. Ludwig was a liquidating partner. The published notice signed by the firm declared that he and Hagenbuch were appointed liquidating partners. The latter ceased to act as such, and…
3Cases cited1 opinion
- Estate of DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
4Cited by2 opinions
- Pottsville Bank v. Minersville Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Wood v. ToddCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1918